Pages

Monday, 11 October 2010

I've spoken in a previous post of Gary Smith's involvement in Above the Ruins and Sol Invictus (Tony Wakeford's bands after leaving Death in June). Smith was simultaneously a Combat 18 and BNP supporter as well as a member of hardcore Nazi skinhead group No Remorse.

One aspect of the situation that deserves having more light thrown on it is the extent of overlap or continuity between the anarcho-punk and Fascist milieus in the early 80s. On the left is a picture of Gary Smith around the time that he was a member of his first band The Decadent Few. According to their mySpace pages;"Formed in East London,1984 by Kaya, Mike, Bernie and Mark of YOUTH IN ASIA, plus Steph of HAGAR THE WOMB briefly, Decadent Few’s first gig was at Studio One in Slough, June 1984. Mark and Steph had stepped out by this point and a friend, Gary, was taught Bass by Mike in vintage Paul Simenon-style, i.e. coloured stickers on the frets to denote where to play which note which song. Luckily, Gary learnt fast and this line up played regularly across London with bands like FLOWERS IN THE DUSTBIN, TOM’S MIDNIGHT GARDEN, STIGMA, ANDY LOVEBUG & THE TENDERHEARTS and the WET PAINT THEATRE, a Punk Theatre Company".

The t-shirt he's wearing here is a bit of a giveaway, of course, since it features the Celtic Cross symbolbeloved by Nazi skinheads and others. While anarcho-punks could be extremely militant against, and were often in the forefront of, physical opposition to, racism, Fascism, etc., at the same time there was an ambivalence in their ideas that could also make (some of) them in some circumstances susceptible to accepting Fascists in their midst. In his autobiography Crass founder Penny Rimbaud talks about how the group initially had a sizeable contingent of NF / British Movement (BM) supporters among their fans, and first adopted the anarchist symbol merely as a way of keeping both the NF and SWP at bay by taking up a position that was neither Fascist nor Socialist but independent of both (the SWP and RCP apparently had the cheek to ask Crass to play anti-Nazi gigs). This, of course, is to duck the issues rather than taking a clear anti-fascist stance. There are even rumors that Steve Ignorant (Crass vocalist) may have played on some Above the Ruins recordings alongside active Fascists such as Ian Read and Smith.

One of the interesting things about the list of bands The Decadent Few played with is the way that it overlaps with groups associated with pro-Fascist fan Dev, of While Angels Watch. According to Dev; "During the early 1980's I also played in: PERSONS UNKNOWN (Guitar and Vocals), YOUTH IN ASIA (Drums), FLOWERS IN THE DUSTBIN (first Drums then Guitar), TOMS MIDNIGHT GARDEN (Vocals and Guitar), HYPERACTIVE (Guitar and Vocas) and SIXTH COMM (Guitar)." This raises the idea that some parts of the anarcho-squat-punk scene overlapped and co-mingled with various Fascist and pro-Nazi ideologues. The mySpace pages for Tom's Midnight Garden explicitly mention Smith and Patrick Leagas (of Death in June) as members, and of course Sixth Comm was Leagas's band after leaving Death in June. All of which is further evidence of the many threads that tie Death in June to Fascism and Fascist musicians. But it also raises the question of to what extent Fascists were able to operate on the fringes of the anarcho milieu. No doubt we'll talk more of Dev in future, but for now I just want to register this issue and say that if you have more information about this murky territory I'd be happy to hear about it.

Steve Ignorant has certainly played with some dubious characters, though I find it unlikely in the extreme that he himself had any kind of right wing agenda at all. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about this. I notice that he has just released his autobiography. Hopefully that will shed some light on the question. I'll be reading it with interest.

His autobiography has little of interest to say about Current 93 (or, really, politics generally). He says that he met Tibet through hanging out at Annie Anxiety's squat, and that Tibet was a big Crass fan, so he agreed to do some vocals with the band. Then he describes a gig where Tibet was just kneeling on stage screaming "Ring'of'Roses", and he simply decided that it wasn't his idea of music so he stopped working with Tibet and C93. My overall impression of Steve Ignorant is that he was never really interested in politics, just having a good time. I'm sure he could have blundered into some dicey situations but there's no sign of him having any sympathy at all with Fascist (or any other right wing) ideology. At one point he defends the use of violence against Fascists, arguing against the pacifist attitude of the rest of Crass. Generally he comes across as a pretty decent guy - a bit of a 'geezer', as they used to say.

But . . . but . . . what about Steve Ignorant in Epping Forest living only FIVE MILES away from Tibet in Walthamstow? I heard that they both used the SAME BRAND of sauce on their chips. I hear that they have stood on the SAME STAGE (although, admittedly, not necessarily at the same time, or on the same day). Surely this is more than just "coincidence"? Can't we just torch both their houses, just to make sure they're not a threat to the rest of us?

" I hear that they have stood on the SAME STAGE (although, admittedly, not necessarily at the same time, or on the same day). Surely this is more than just "coincidence"? Can't we just torch both their houses, just to make sure they're not a threat to the rest of us?"

It is my opinion that any link Decadent Few had to the London anarcho punk scene is purely coincidental and of the passing ships variety. Decadent Few were came later than most of the bands this article links them with and were more part of the crustie and traveller scene. One member later joined radical Dance Faction who were very active on the free festival circuit and Stonehenge campaign. It is , however, of note that the official Decadent Few Myspace page glosses over Gary Smith's later musical career whilst including the photo of him wearing the fascist celtic cross Tshirt reproduced above.

It's a Celtic Cross, also known as Odin's Cross. As a racist symbol it was first popularised by the Ku Klux Klan in the US and was later adopted by the National Front in England. Later it was popular with Skrewdriver and the Blood and Honour movement.

well,there's your contradiction then.Because Odin was NEVER a deity within Celtic culture.Ireland,Scotland,Wales,The Isle of Man,Britanny etc are not in Scandinavia,where Odin was the pricinple diety (Or Wotan/Wodan in the lower areas like Northern Germany).Celtic culture & the Norse cuture existed at different time frames. It is not possible that these two seperate cultures overlapped,sorry.

"are you suggesting that Flowers in the Dustbin, Youth in Asia and Hagar the Womb should be considered as fascist 'fellow-travellers"

No, I am not suggesting anything other than what is said in the article.

"Are you also suggesting that there was a fascist element within anarcho-punk generally"

There were certainly individuals involved who were sympathetic to Fascism, but that isn't to condemn anarcho-punk as such (I'm sure such individuals pop up in most cultures). The interesting questions are more to do with how the politics of anarcho-punk affected the way people dealt with such problems (for good or ill). To the extent that anarcho-punks really were anarchists their response was likely to differ depending on which flavour of anarchism they adopted; from militant opposition to Fascism (class struggle anarchism) through to a woolier response (that I think Crass sometimes reflected) in which "the left and right are as bad as each other" - an attitude that was bound to blunt their response to Fascism.

Thank you for you response. Have you read The Guillotine at Work Vol. 1 The Leninist Counter-Revolution by Gregory Petrovich Maximoff- first publish in 1940, re-published by Cienfuegos Press 1979?It is a useful account of an anarchist's experience of the Russian Revolution and goes some way to explaining why some anarchists are as wary of Marxist revolutionary parties as they are of fascists.

I assume you are a Marxist, in which case you are likely to be suspicious of anarchists generally - even class struggle anarchists reject the statist aspects of Marxism. Anti-fascism is a motherhood and apple pie position which no sensible person would dispute.

However I can't find anything on this site which explains what your alternative political position is. What is you alternative to fascism?

@Alistair: I'm not suspicious of Anarchists generally, though I disagree with their political philosophy. I've read Maximov (and Mett, Makhno, etc) on the Russian Revolution, of course. I don't offer an 'alternative political position' on this blog because my interest here is with the analysis of Fascism and culture. As you've noticed, the posts lean toward Marxist analysis, but I'd be happy to publish articles from Anarchists or anyone else who has something interesting to say about the matter. I mean, the blog is not intended to sell any particular political position (other than anti-Fascism and anti-Racism).

Thank you Strelnikov... I have just done a very quick (Wikipedia) search on anti-fascism which throws up a dodgy connection from the Anti-Fascist Action group to the Independent Working Class Association... who allegedly oppose multiculturalism on the grounds that it can create segregated communities. (There was (is?) anarchist involvement in these groups.)

I therefore suggest that there is a danger in adopting an anti-fascist, anti-racist position in isolation from a deeper and broader political perspective. That anti-fascism and anti-racism can be used as starting points for political education rather than taken-for-granted /unexamined assumptions of their obvious falsity.

The IWCA's opposition to *political* multiculturalism seems ok to me. It's very similar to Paul Gilroy's criticisms of the GLC in his book "There Ain't No Black In The Union Jack".

A top-down approach which divides people, funding, and communities by race can obviously lead to problems. If you enccourage black community leaders or muslim community leaders, there is then a vacuum for white community leaders and the identity politics thereof. This is the natural terrain for the rebranded BNP with all their "rights for whites" rhetoric.

For example it's fairly uncontroversial to suggest that some of the problems in northern former industrial towns have been caused by local authorities housing people according to their race, thus creating racialised ghettos.

Similarly I would hope that most anti-racists would baulk at Lee Jasper suggesting that black kids should be given their own schools, or new Labour and the Con-dem's mania for faith schools. All of which effectively segregate kids by race.

There is some background to this line of thinking here:

http://redaction.org/race_and_class/contents.html

(Incidentally, I do accept that most people might have problems with the IWCA's use of the term "multiculturalism" to describe all this.)

Thanks Anon. I almost got stuck in a similar situation when I lived in Hackney -in 1990 I tried to set up a tenants group on our estate. We had a couple of meetings, but although this was at the time of the Poll tax, the reason most people came along to the meetings was to complain about squatters on the estate. The squatters were anarcho-punks, some of whom I vaguely knew. Luckily we did not manage to get enough people to sign up to the tenants group so it faded away before I had to choose sides. Though probably I would have supported the tenants against the squatters... but it is easy to imagine a slightly different situation where race or religion rather than lifestyle were seen as 'the problem'...

Thanks Alistair - yes that's interesting. Tenants groups are always a random mix up of people and priorities I think, which makes them frustrating but also rewarding...

There's a video on youtube called "summer on the estate" which covers similar stuff to what you mention - a tenants group in Hackney and issues around the poll tax. I doubt it's the same one but might bring back some memories :-)

I don't get involved with site chat rooms (or whatever you call them these days) but felt inclined to comment on some of the things that have been written about Gary Smith and his nazi doings, especially as there's been much noted about the fact that he was once in D.Few. Firstly may I confirm that I knew nothing about Smith's nazi leanings when we initially got to know him - he was a typical vegan anarcho with ribbons in his hair (I have a lovely photo of him in my previous back garden cuddling my old cat)- before he shaved his head and 'turned'. Smith was considered a nice gentle individual and he seemed very into the anarcho ethics, far more right on than I ever was! One of my friends was an early girlfriend of his and she remembers him fondly around this time. Smith learned to play bass and we did some gigs together BUT he started becoming obsessed with some odd things including P.TV, which the rest of us found quite amusing (all that masturbating on the 23rd of every month etc). Each to their own but honestly! We saw it as a fad he (and some of his mates) were going through, bearing in mind they were young and impressionable and I guess there was a little bit of the shock element and wanting to belong to some elitist movement - all a load of bollox to myself and Mick and we did used to chuckle about it all. But I cannot say we ever saw anything sinister until Smith began going on about Death in June - bearing in mind their former Crisis connections (a band myself and Mick used to really like). Smith became besotted with them and invited us along to a recording session they were doing in some studio in Waterloo - some video shoot where they needed a crowd. It was a peculiar night - Dev managed to bring it all to a halt - another story, nice one Dev! Me and Mick still laugh about it to this day! The thing that got me though was all these people dressed in nazi uniforms and the memorabilia - it was not nice and I felt very uncomfortable. Call me naive (and I obviously was) I honestly didn't realise all this kind of stuff was going on behind the scenes, lurking behind the music of Death in June. Smith even tried to set me up to do some backing vocals for them and Pat came round to visit - he too seemed a nice enough bloke. It was around this time we noticed Smith's personality changing and he was coming out with some weird and unpleasant stuff so this is when me and Mick decided to sling him out and sever the ties. This adolescent fad of his was turning into something a lot more sinister and there was no way we wanted to be associated with it. Thank god we got Womble in on bass, not only did we improve musically but we were not at risk of being linked to anything right wing. D.Few were and still are a punk band - no political stance, even though we were briefly associated with the anarcho scene purely because of my previously being in YIA. I still adhere to the anarcho ethics and always will, and I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE the right wing movement in all it's shapes, forms and names (can't keep up with them all). When it comes to music, however, D.Few and my other band PCF have nothing to do with politics in any shape or form - it is all about the music and having a good time and making a racket - simple as that. I would not and will not ever perform in a band with any individual who has any right wing leanings. I feel bad knowing what Smith went on to become and the fact that he was once the bassist in D.Few - it is not nice for our band to be associated with someone like this and I hope anyone who takes the time to read this appreciates and understands. I don't know what Smith is up to now, nor do I care to know. I shall just remember him as the young, gentle soul he once was when we initially knew him and treat him as someone who has passed away, because the person he became is a complete stranger, certainly not the kind of person I would ever let cuddle my cat and share tea with in my back garden!!

PS I also find it surprising here that some posters express some degree of confusion about whether Anarchists are for, or against Marxism, Communism and its related movements.

C'mon, anyone who knows anything at all about Aanrchism will know that leading Anarchist thinkers ( Stirner, Bakunin, Makhno ) wilst respecting aspects of Marx, despised and opposed Communism in any wider form.

C'mon -- haven't you people read the most fundamental Anarchist thinkers?

Those Anarchists were/are right to oppose Communism with all their might.

@ Anonymous - What you say about Anarchists and Marxists opposing each others political positions is obviously true but there are plenty of potential overlaps between the Left and Anarchism as well - Collectivism, Socialist Libertarianism, Anarcho-Syndicalism etc. The main meeting points between them though are anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism and in some cases pacifism. In the main you will find both factions united in opposition and yet holding very different views on an alternative. It doesn't stop them uniting to oppose. This would never happen between either faction and rightist positions, although it must be said that Anarchists have been very lax at times in keeping fascism at bay within elements of their own ranks - Anarchist environmentalism and animal rights spring to mind as examples of where fascist entryism has made real progress over the last twenty years. Fascists might try to co-opt political strategies from the left, but they don't attempt to infiltrate it in the same way. I believe Marxism is the by far the strongest political point of opposition to fascism.

On a different point I think that Kaya Decadent's post is a fantastic example of a credible response to getting caught up in politics one actually opposes. You would never hear the same honesty and clear positioning from the likes of Tony Wakeford and his ilk, (although obviously he really has something to apologise for, whereas Kaya was obviously never remotely right-wing and just got unlucky in once having someone who became a fascist in her band).

Yes, fair enough Jack,undoubtedly, you are right of course,but my point is that many people falsely see Anarchism as a connected 'logical' link to Communism/trad Socialism, as in, "I am far left of the far left -- I am on the extreme left; I am an Anarchist."

I think that is wrong, and does not -- in any way -- accord with the thought of early Anarchists.

It is totally clear that Stirner and Bakunin accepted ( even deeply respected ) some of Marx's ideas -- but they unequivocally and without doubt hated and despised Communism and Bolshevism and 'Marxism' ( such as it was in their lifetime) and all forms of 'organised Communism' of their day, to the same degree they hated the capitalist classes. Makhno hated all Bolshevism with a passion, and his occasional agreements with them were his downfall. Malatesta too, flatly, did not trust Communists/Marxists.( Gramsci has written of the Italian Anarchists extreme mistrust of his ideas, even though he passionatly tried to persuade them otherwise). Stirner respected Marx, but he immediately dismissed as horrific the power he saw it placing in the hands of prodcucers of faceless, mass dictatorhips. Bakunin respected Marx's economic analysis as far superior to his own, but rejected Marxism outright for the same reasons as Stirner.

And the hatred was returned : Lenin, Trotsky and Marx despised Anarchism and its main 'characters' with a passion -- and are all on record as saying so. The 'Communists' ( of the time) saw Anarchism as either bourgeois,solipsistic, unorganised,or, as a form of wild banditry -- but what is clear ( to me ) is that the 'Communists' of their day in fact hated Anarchism's refusal to accept masters, its refusal to accept authority and its refusal especially, to accept the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as being part of the path towards achieving full human freedom.

The Anarchists of their time of course, knew full well that "Dictator of the Proletariat" was just a nice phrase covering up the fact that it really was just another form of extreme state brutality of the worst kind.

They despised Marxist/Leninist/Trotsky-ite notions of "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" , and despised their co ercion of struggling workers, and their brutality towards, and murder of the poor strugglers -- all of which the Anarchists saw as yet another scam to keep people in chains.

The Anarchists were completely right and history and the record prove them so.

The Anarchists deserve far more credit for seeing through the scam of Marxism/Communism and the left immediately, and most of their insights look remarkably relevant when looking at today's situation regarding 'left' and 'right's' failures.

@Anon: that's a rather one-sided account of anarchism. You forget to mention that there are many streams of communism that oppose the Stalinist and Maoist bureaucracies every bit as much as the anarchists do. You also omit to mention the way that anarchists and communists have worked together over the years - especially in anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigns. Of course anarchism and Marxism are ideologically very different (though there are many Marxist anarchists), but anarchists and Marxists have a long tradition of fighting alongside one another and learning from one another. And for every anti-Bolshevik anarchist there were also those that went over to the side of the Bolsheviks (Serge being one of the best known examples).

You say that anarchism has been 'proved right' by history without saying which of the many, competing and opposed strands of anarchism you mean. Green anarchism? Libertarian, individualist anarchism? Class struggle anarchism? Anarchism is not a unified ideology, but is compatible with a wide range of politics - unfortunately this includes racist and anti-working class politics.

Strelnikov wrote -- "Anarchism is not a unified ideology, but is compatible with a wide range of politics - unfortunately this includes racist and anti-working class politics."

Well,it’s true that Proudhon inspired early Fascists as much as he did Anarchists, ( see 'Cercle Proudhon' and Georges Sorel ). Also, it’s a depressing fact that Proudhon condoned the expulsion or extermination of all Jews from Europe, and his papers on the subject make shocking reading.

And it’s true that Mussolini,whilst publicly encouraging his Fascist street gangs to beat up Anarchists, secretly admired Anarchists like Malatesta, and he openly supported Italian American Anarcho Nihilists, Sacco and Vanzetti. Mussolini had started his ‘career’ by enthusiastically translating Kropotkin, whom he admired, his father also having started out as a devotee of Bakunin. Mussolini also admired Max Stirner.

And it’s true that Mussolini’s ‘state Fascist artists’, Marrinetti and Boccioni also toyed with Anarchism and Fascism, venerating Anarchists like Galli.

Korean Anarchists of the early 1900′s onwards, were also committed ethno centric Nationalists, and, ultimately, Conservatives of a definite right wing leaning.

To me, it’s an unresolved , very odd area,full of bizarre contradictions, and the political scientist Zeev Sternhell has written on the strangeness of what seems to have been a mutual attraction between some early Anarchists and Fascists — the historian Eric Hobsbawm has also acknowledged the strangeness of it — but says ultimately, it was only a passing affinity between the two ‘ideologies’, and a phenomena that when subject to scrutiny, throws up no real psychological, sociological answers as to why such bizarre cross pollinations proved attractive.

Leading thinkers in the field like Zeev Sternhell, who have written on the European fascist phenomenon at great length, now look at Israel as the prime examples of a model fascist state, and he is supported in his critique by Uri Avnery, leading Israeli human rights activist, and Ilan Pappe,the Israeli scholar, and also inspired by Holocaust survivor, Israel Shahak, who wrote on Israeli fascism at great length before his death.

Holocaust survivor, Hajo Meyer, also devotes much of his time to denouning Israel as a fascist state.

To my mind, these are the men who are going to help us define and understand fascism, and, in particular, survivors of the Nazi purges like Zeev Sternhell, who have written at such length on all the cross polinations and unexpected places that fascism can be found to manifest.

"You say that anarchism has been 'proved right' by history without saying which of the many, competing and opposed strands of anarchism you mean."

I mean -- Bakunin, Makhno, Kropotkin, Rocker,Stirner, Tolstoy -- yes, all of these men had quite different views and approaches , but you will recognise what threads they had in common. I know you have read them, so I don't need to spell it out.

I don't want to include Proudhon on my list -- yes, his rhetoric is exciting and attractive -- but his nationalism and racism is particularly vile and unacceptable.

Of current thinkers I would highlight Chomsky, who defines himself as an Anarchist, and despises Leninism and Troktsky-ism, and most forms of communism, which he views as severely authoritarian and anti libertarian. He particularly opposes the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

I am not a fan boy; neither am I some kind of flag bearer for the above thinkers -- I know very well their faults and limits and contradictions -- but I'd certainly prefer them over any other 'ism' or 'ist'.

Most of the above is above me and I make no apologies in bringing this back to Kayas response from Decadent Few re: having a band member who went on to adopt extreme right wing views. My band, Hagar the Womb, were once accused in a Sounds review of sieg-heiling on stage when we supported Conflict at the Brixton Ace. At the time there was a stage invasion and we were running round, our arms flapping away trying to get everyone off so we could continue. When we read the review we were incredulous as a brief glance at the band will show two obviously non-Caucasian members. We kicked off and got an apology in the next issue. The point is that mud sticks. It is understandable listing bands that Gary Smith was involved in, but digging further would have shown that Decadent Few for example, kicked him out once he had developed right wing leanings. If Kaya had not pointed this out, Decadent Few and her new band PCF may have been perceived by people reading this and with links, a wider audience, to have fascist sympathies. Admittedly at times its difficult, but please be cautious with what you print, and the conclusions you suggest or draw from the sometimes sketchy information you have. Amen.

Ruth, I knew members of your band, very closely, sharing houses with them for a number of years, and I never heard a single reactionary comment from any of them, and indeed, never heard a single reactionary comment from any person on the 'anarcho punk' scene. Ever.

And on Ruth's second point, there is a constant underlying implication on the whole blog, that Anarchism features an undercurrent that is fascistic -- that is just such nonsense, that it doesn't stand up for a second.

Yes, we all know that BANA ( all ten of its adherents ) play around with Anarchism, and we all know that creeps like Johnathon Bowden ( and his fans : all fifteen librarians from Burgess Hill and Woking ) also display a bizarre fascination with some Anarcho nihilist ideas, and yes, we know that Evola was once part of the Anarchic Dada movement and that Junger was interested in Stirner. Yes, we know that some members of 'green anarchist' ( all three of them) are open to 'tribal white' vilage communes.

But to somehow take those flimsy threads and marginal 'groups' which normally count up to ten members as being 'proof' of a sinister anti working class and racist tendency in Anarchism is utterly and completely absurd and delusional and a distraction from more important issues.

In fact, anyone who seriously thinks there is a 'worrying fascist tendency' within Anarchism needs his head looked, and is just plain dishonestly twisting the historical record.

Sit down with anyone who really knows Anarchist theory and history and try to argue for a cross over between Anarchism and Fascism ( besides a few lunatic and aberrant examples) and they would dismiss such argument in minutes.

Ruth: not being based on any coherent ideas it's probably not wise to generalise too much about 'anarchism' as such. At the same time there have always been overlaps between some aspects of anarchism and elements of fascist racist, etc., ideology. Here's a very good article that touches on some of these issues.

Anon: you forget the much more significant links between fascism and syndicalism.

No Strelnikov, I do not overlook syndicalism -- presumably, you are referring to Georges Sorel and his 'mobilising of the proletariat' through myth and cults of violence etc.

But even so, those are utterly aberrant within Anarchist thought, and by no stretch of the imagination anything close to being representative or dominant.

Your blog blows out of all proportion these tiny, negligible threads that morphed out of radical Anarchist tradition, and presents them as some kind of sinister , even leading motivation within the Anarchist traditions. You know as well as I do that the kinds of people who fetishise miniscule links between Anarchism and Fascism and the avant garde could probably fill a Bognor Regis Community Centre, their numbers are so small.

Mahkno and Malatesta and Bakunin despised Nationalists and Capitalists and Fascists, and fought them with great courage.

You do a great dis-service to their example, and to other past and present genuine freedom strugglers and toilers to misrepresent Anarchism so.

I am not sure why you are motivated to do so.

Also, I will not discuss Home's ideas here, of which I am fully aware. To do so is 'second hand' and seems to me to be riding on his coat tails -- I am interested in your ideas and your motivation. Do not just refer me to Home's work, because I am debating with you now.

Also, your assertion that Anarchism is not based on coherent ideas is absurd and can't be taken seriously, and such a comment undermines your entire blog. I am no Anarchist fan boy,and I am fully aware of potential flaws in diverse Anarchist theories -- but you are surely aware of the vast, often highly sophisticated body of Anarchist theory, from Bakunin, to Mahkno to Kropotkin to Tolstoy to Rudolf Rocker to Chomsky -- whether that body of thought suits your ideological prisms or not is beside the point, but to so brashly assert it is not based on coherent ideas, is, frankly, blatantly wrong and shows you have not read around your subject.

Also, if you seriously think there is a case for claiming that there is a consistent undercurrent of racism in Anarchism, you'd be much better off looking at Marxism for that -- have you read Marx's blatantly anti Semitic views of Jews ?

And if anarchists have nothing to do with fascism can anyone explain why Penny Rimbaud, in the latest issue of Mojo is talking (again) about how the left is no better than the right (specifically with reference to the Anti-Nazi League)? That is almost monumentally stupid. He than goes on to say that Crass "had a very healthy relationship with the British Movement". He denies that BM members were necessarily fascists and says that the left 'pushed' them into doing what they did. He also says that their racism is 'understandable' and caused by immigration.

The British Movement were one of the most openly and unashamedly Nazi groups, founded by long-time hardcore Nazi Colin Jordan.

If that isn't an example of anarcho-punk covering up for fascism I don't know what is.

I talked about Rimbaud because we are talking about 'anarcho-punk' and he was certainly a major influence there. Of course you are right - he can't be said to 'represent' anarchism. But then who can?

I've emphasised several times that I find myself on the same side as anarchists in most situations, so I am hardly likely to want to smear the whole anarchist tradition. On the other hand I find anarchism as an ideology to be completely incoherent and impossible to make sense of.

Whether Rimbaud can be said to 'represent' anarchism or not he certainly 'represents' Crass - clearly the most influential of the anarcho bands of that era and he is basically an apologist for the British Movement. That is not something that should be brushed under the carpet.

No Strelnikov, I do not overlook syndicalism -- presumably, you are referring to Georges Sorel and his 'mobilising of the proletariat' through myth and cults of violence etc. But even so, those are utterly aberrant within Anarchist thought, and by no stretch of the imagination anything close to being representative or dominant.Your blog blows out of all proportion these tiny, negligible threads that morphed out of radical Anarchist tradition, and presents them as some kind of sinister , even leading motivation within the Anarchist traditions. You know as well as I do that the kinds of people who fetishise miniscule links between Anarchism and Fascism and the avant garde could probably fill a Bognor Regis Community Centre, their numbers are so small.Mahkno and Malatesta and Bakunin despised Nationalists and Capitalists and Fascists, and fought them with great courage. You do a great dis-service to their example, and to other past and present genuine freedom strugglers and toilers to misrepresent Anarchism so.I am not sure why you are motivated to do so.Also, I will not discuss Home's ideas here, of which I am fully aware. To do so is 'second hand' and seems to me to be riding on his coat tails -- I am interested in your ideas and your motivation. Do not just refer me to Home's work, because I am debating with you now.Also, your assertion that Anarchism is not based on coherent ideas is absurd and can't be taken seriously, and such a comment undermines your entire blog. I am no Anarchist fan boy,and I am fully aware of potential flaws in diverse Anarchist theories -- but you are surely aware of the vast, often highly sophisticated body of Anarchist theory, from Bakunin, to Mahkno to Kropotkin to Tolstoy to Rudolf Rocker to Chomsky -- whether that body of thought suits your ideological prisms or not is beside the point, but to so brashly assert it is not based on coherent ideas, is, frankly, blatantly wrong and shows you have not read around your subject.

If Rimbaud isn't a serious thinker, why are you even bothering with him? If you are choosing Rimabaud as represenative of Anarchism, we might as well then, be discussing 'lefties' like billy Bragg, or on the 'right' one of those 1970's right wing comedians like Jim Davidson.

I don't see what you are trying to do here -- are we discussing serious thinkers and ideas - or popular crap?

Make it clear so we know what the premise of your blog is. And why don't you want to discuss serious Anarchist thinkers and theorists?

The interview in Mojo is from 1989 and the Crass/ BM skins connection concerns the situation in 1978/9. Crass were trying to disengage skinheads they encountered from the British Movement. This 'do-goodery' was criticised at the time and led to the Comway Hall conflict of 8 September 1979 [but Martin Lux in his book Anti-Fascist gives May 1979, the Mojo article says November 1979 and The Story of Crass page 147(quoting Martin Lux) says October].

Kill Your pet Puppy issues 1 and 2 reproduced Crass statement about the Conway Hall events, a criticism of Crass statement by 'Nester Makhno' and and Crass' response - seehttp://greengalloway.blogspot.com/2006/11/crass-conway-hall-statement-kypp-1.html for scans. There is also some discussion of the event on the KYPP site http://killyourpetpuppy.co.uk/news/?p=756For a link to Martin Lux's book seewww.myspace.com/martin_lux_antifascist

At the time - 1977-1984- neo-Nazi/ fascist skinheads were attacking punks on the street, They also attacked punk squats, including arson attacks when punks were killed. Whatever Crass' position, for all the rest of the anarchist and other punks, fascists and nazi's were a dangerous enemy. However incoherent our ideology that much we knew from bitter experience.

To put it as mildly as possible, the suggestion that due to our lack of Marxist rigour, due to our lack of a coherent ideology, we 'anarcho-punks' were collectively apologists for fascism is fucking patronising.

Since I was working in a factory and living in a bed-sit rather than signing on and living in a squat back then, I can't speak with the authority of direct experience. If I had the direct experience of those who were subject to the fascism of the time, I would be less polite.

I quoted Rimbaud because of his significance as a member of Crass to the anarcho-punk milieu. There is nothing odd about that.

"the suggestion that... we 'anarcho-punks' were collectively apologists for fascism is fucking patronising"

what suggestion? who suggested it? I didn't. I merely recorded what Rimbaud said at the time.

"Make it clear so we know what the premise of your blog is. And why don't you want to discuss serious Anarchist thinkers and theorists?"

The blog exists to discuss aspects of the impact of fascism in popular culture. Therefore it is appropriate to discuss what Penny Rimbaud says. I have made it abundantly clear that I'm happy to discuss theoretical issues that bear on this.

Alistair said : "To put it as mildly as possible, the suggestion that due to our lack of Marxist rigour, due to our lack of a coherent ideology, we 'anarcho-punks' were collectively apologists for fascism is fucking patronising."

Exactly true, and also utterly historically inaccurate, which leads me to think that the blog owner is ( A) a fetishist who fantasises about left/right cross overs ( B ) a mis informer with an agenda , or ( C) deeply deluded and misinformed him/herself or ( D ) just plain mad -- anyone who is seriously proposing that there is a sinister fascist stream within Anarchism is, simply, nuts.

Go on, I challenge you -- sit down with anyone who knows anything about politics and history and ideology -- then, tell them you think there are dangerous fascist threads within Anarchism.

They will stare at you as if you are stark raving bonkers, or,think you are just plain stupid and un educated.

I am not at all interested in this moralistic 'collective responsibility' theme. You raised it, not me. I have nowhere said that anarchists bear some 'collective responsibility' for whatever it is that other anarchists get up to.

As for answering the more general questions about anarchism this is simply not the place to do so. The arguments around that matter are widely known and widely discussed. I have certainly debated them myslef many times in the past.

In answer to the specific question re. anarchist/fascist convergence I linked to an excellent article by Stewart Home on Anarchist Integralism but apparently that is not acceptable because it isn't based on my own research. I haven't the faintest idea why in my case the goalposts should be moved and I am not allowed to refer to other people's work.

I don't get why a lot of the people above seem to see this blog as anti-anarchist and are so defensive. Strelnikov has posted more about the likes of Tony Wakeford and Douglas Pearce of Death In June and Sol Invictus than ex-anarchists, and they used to be Trotskyists. Wakeford was in the Ssocialist Workers Party in the 1970s and Pearce in the International Marxist Group at that time. They both went on to become Nazis in the 1980s. It is to Strelnikov's credit he doesn't try to cover up that some of those he criticises as fascists here were once Marxists. Those on the anarcho-punk scene should not need to make such knee-jerk reactions to a blog like this, and be more willing to deal with the shits from the anarcho-punk scene who went on to be fascists or who defend fascists.

What I find really creepy here, is the truth I am now seeing about anarchism and anarcho punk. I grew up genuinely beleiving that anarchism was a form of liberatarianism -- but after reading your blog, I am amazed to find out that its another variant of fascism that draws people in with a veneer of socialism.

And, what is worse, finding out from your blog that bands I'd heard a lot about from older punks I know, like Crass and those other bands on the anarcho punk scene mentioned above, were really just covering up for fascist tendencies all along.

Please keep up the good work -- it is a real eye opener for me to learn the truh about Crass, and these other anarcho punk bands, as it will also be for the many other people that read your blog.

The above posters defending anarchism and anarcho punk are being defensive for a reason, and that is, the truth is that anarchism is a deeply reactionary force,and many anarchists did inded, get involved in far right activity, and that IS a historical tendency in anarchism, whatever mr anon above likes to assert.

Anarchism is also anti semitic as many of its key theorists have shown, and anarchisn has always had a deeply anti Zionist tendency, that now hides under being anti Israel,which, is no more than dog whistle speak for anti Semitic. ( Ever wondered why so many 'anarchists' oppose Israel? It isn't difficult to work it out...)

Strelnikov, everything on your blog is sensationalist, hearsay, exagerration and smear by association, or, badly sourced mis information -- with skills like that, you are well placed to get a job with UK tabloids, or with a right wing pro Israel blog like Harry's Place.

John from London: of course that is not at all what is being argued. If you are an anarchist I don't see how you think that kind of trolling is at all a useful to anti-fascism. Perhaps you are a fascist who wants to create some pseudo-argument between anarchists and Marxists here.

Whether Rimbaud can be said to 'represent' anarchism or not he certainly 'represents' Crass - clearly the most influential of the anarcho bands of that era and he is basically an apologist for the British Movement. That is not something that should be brushed under the carpet.

On July 7, 1984 Crass played their final gig at Aberdare in Wales, a benefit for striking miners.

Why would an apologist for the British Movement perform at a benefit gig for striking miners in 1984?

Alisdair: "Why would an apologist for the British Movement perform at a benefit gig for striking miners in 1984?"

Because he is a very confused man, ideologically speaking. Crass, of course, played many benefits for many good causes. That just makes it all the more mysterious that Rimbaud should be so stupid as to make apologies for members of the British Movement.

Incidentally, Alisdair, earlier you said: "Crass were trying to disengage skinheads they encountered from the British Movement"

For the record, I don't doubt that that is true. The problem is that, in order to 'relate' to BM supporters he makes all kinds of excuses for them. He says in the interview that their racism is 'understandable but not forgivable', but he tends to forgive them anyway. He has also been fairly consistent in arguing that the left (by which he seems to mean the Anti-Nazi League) was as bad as the right (by which he means the fascists) - a position which is neither understandable nor forgivable. Even if you disagree with some aspects of the ANL approach, there is no excuse for equating them with the fascists they were fighting. Rimbaud tries to adopt a transcendental point of view, above the actual struggle, and thereby blurs the lines between fascism and anti-fascism. That is the weakness of his politics. I note that, eg., Steve Ignorant was unhappy with that approach. Such confusion is compatible with supporting the miners, CND, etc.

Strelnikov, I can't help but notice that whilst a number of the posters here, including myself, have made their politcal stance and influences very clear -- however, you have not: Care to tell us what you believe in? Why so coy? It does seem a little unfair that most of us have been totally transparent -- but you have not.

I've avoided stating any position because I want the blog to unite those who take a reasonable position against fascism. Contributors to the blog to date include anarchists, left-communists and Trotskyists, revolutionaries and non-revolutionaries.

Still, since you ask, I'm an unaligned, non-card carrying, catholic Marxist; a former anarchist and former Trotskyist; a left-Freudian, mildly Nietzschean, reader of Debord, Karl Korsch, Lukacs and Adorno.

Anon: I said that anarchism was confused - not that I was confused about anarchism. I did not reply to earlier comments about how anarchism per se is 'obviously' coherent, immune from reactionary influence, how it would be 'mad' to argue that anarchism and fascism might in some cases converge, etc., as it seemed to me to assume an essentially uncritical attitude toward anarchism - a identification with anarchism as a brand and a lifestyle rather than a critical relationship with it as a practical and theoretical tradition. Any serious anarchist would start out from the obvious fact that anarchism is a diverse and incoherent tradition, and would argue in favour of this or that aspect of the tradition. I'm quite happy to engage with serious arguments in defence of anarchism (as they bear on the topics covered by this blog), but a position which simply assumes anarchism's immunity from reactionary ideology is not, imho, a position worth spending a lot of time arguing with.

As so many people seem to want to turn this into a boring argument about whether anarchism itself is unilaterally a 'good' or 'bad' thing, I'll say again that I'm not especially interested in that kind of sectarian question.

Here we go again Strelnikov. Penny Rimbaud of Crass said something you disagree with so he is "a very confused man" and also "he isn't a serious anarchist thinker - he's an idiot".

All I see is another attack on a man who, like all the others you demonise, have achieved significantly more than you. While these people made music that touched the hearts of multitudes, music that 20-30 years later continues to inspire people, all you do is sit on your arse and complain. What a sad life.

Fancy that - criticising people who have 'achieved a lot'. Obviously Penny Rimbaud should only be criticised by people who are even more successful than him.

And can you imagine the cheek of Penny Rimbaud when he started out, before anyone had heard of Crass - criticising other people in his lyrics before he had become influential or successful. That was incredibly presumptuous of him, don't you agree?

"made music that touched the hearts of multitudes, music that 20-30 years later continues to inspire people"

This is total liberal crap. By those standards we shouldn't be allowed to criticise anyone whose music is popular, or who had any kind of influence on anyone. What a servile, celebrity obsessed piece of nonsense.

Now, perhaps fanboys like yourself can leave this site alone and go somewhere else where you can buy a Crass box set or a signed copy of Rimbaud's autobiography. That way you will be happier, I'm sure.

Known or unknown isn't the issue. The point is that all of those people are doers while you are nothing but a whinger.

I am not a Crass fanboy. I don't own a single record by them, nor do I particularly enjoy their music or give a shit about their ideologies. But I do respct them for getting off their arses and acting on their beliefs. They put themselves out there and did something. What have you done except criticized and complained from the sidelines?

"What have you done except criticized and complained from the sidelines?"

I once recorded a punk song about 'oppression' and did my own stencilled art work for the cover - very much in the style of Crass, as it happens. Later on I got interviewed by the NME about the need to 'totally smash all power and be yourself'. Does that count?

I must congratulate Strelnikov on touching a raw nerve here. The reactionary responses Anonymous has posted show how necessary it is to challenge such lazy thinking. It's all very well squealing about Bakunin, Malatesta et al (interesting political thinkers certainly) but how he can defend Rimbaud after his statements about the BM is beyond me. Many people of my generation, both Anarchists and Marxists have spent time opposing fascism in various ways. Many of us had a lot of time for Crass when we were young (even Marxists of a certain stripe like myself), so to hear shit like that is enraging. Having recently read "Shibboleth: My Revolting Life" I was genuinely shocked at what a moron Rimbaud is. His thinking is half-informed, pretentious tripe. I know Anarchist teenagers who are more politically informed and articulate than Rimbaud. Given that the subject of this post is "From Anarcho-Punk to Fascism" I cannot think of a better subject for criticism than Rimbaud, whether you are an Anarchist, a Marxist or simply anti-fascist.It is genuinely sad when someone who had had so much positive influence on a generation turns out to be such a fraud. Oh well, we all have to grow up and face the truth, even when it's such a sad, depressing truth.Keep up the excellent work Strelnikov.

I think Rimbaud's problem is he's always had a tenuous grasp of how things operate on street level. No doubt his heart was in the right place, and he possibly believed that treating BM members with kindness and courtesy would draw out some humane qualities (probably what Chas Smash had in mind when he made his rash 'we don't mind the NF coming to our gigs' comment in a 1980 Madness interview). Of course, that's great on paper but, when facing fascists lacking any qualms about using petrol bombs, broken bottles, knives and crowbars to terrorise their opponents, I think most folk would rather be trapped on a bus with 10 AFA members than 20 peace punks adamant on testing the 'everyone's born without hatred' theory.

In their attempt to divert young skinheads away from the British Movement, Penny Rimbaud /Crass sought reasons why fascism was attractive to these young skins. This, as Strelnikov has pointed out, led Penny Rimbaud to find excuses for their behaviour and to become an apologist for fascism.

Was the Rimbaud/ Crass position criticised at the time from within anarcho-punk? Yes it was. It was criticised in Kill Your pet Puppy No. 1 1979 (page 16) from a class-struggle anarchist position. Seehttp://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/900/888/1600/crassconway4.jpg

In his response lengthy Penny said “ You talk about the ‘class war’; what is the class war? We are all oppressed by the same system, is it any difference what class you are from, oppression knows no barriers.”

This and other remarks (about skins/ BM skins) in Penny’s response supports Strelnikov’s argument. However, there is also evidence that penny and Crass’ position changed as the political situation changed. Crass strongly opposed the Falklands War in 1982 and the consequences of this opposition had a radicalising effect. By 1983/4 Crass were even questioning their pacifism and the Miners Strike was a deciding factor.

In 1979/80, when challenged on the contradiction between their advocacy of anarchism and their pacifism (in the KYPP 1 article), Penny replied that he did not find any contradiction. However, by 1984, the weight of political reality had pushed Crass (including Penny) towards a class-struggle position. [ See the 1984 chapter of The Story of Crass for background].

This shift in political position by Crass from 1979 to 1984 should be recognised and respected.

Alisdair: "This shift in political position by Crass from 1979 to 1984 should be recognised and respected"

So it should. It is absolutely true, as you say, that Crass shifted position under the pressure of events and due to criticism from within the milieu.

Something very similar had already taken place some years earlier in punk more generally with the rise of the NF the launch of Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League, and the resulting arguments between fans and criticism of the bands, etc. Its because of that background, though, that you could see Rimbaud's original position as a step back from what had already been achieved by supposedly 'mainstream' punk.

Another interesting aspect of Rimbaud's position is that it mirrors the arguments of the Oi! movement, which saw working class culture as inherently reactionary (and celebrated the fact) - contrasting it with the supposedly middle class nature of anti-racism and leftism. That image of the working class is a reactionary lie, but I think it's how Rimbaud saw the working class; he excuses the racism of BM members because he sees it as an aspect of working class existence. In the real world militant anti-racism and anti-fascism are essentially working class attitudes, so we never excuse racism and fascism, but see them as complete betrayals of working class interests.

You see, here's where you look even silier -- not only do you know nothing about Anarchism, not only do you invent an entire narrative about anarcho punk -- it is clear that you don't even know your Marx. Though Marx was Jewish, he was full of what many would call anti Semitic rhetoric.

In fact, you can read Marx on "The Jewish Question" here, in his critique of Bauer --

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

C'mon Strelnikov ! First you say you are an ex Amnarchist -- but you know nothing of Anarchist theory, then you tell us you are a Marxist -- but it seems you don't know his work either.

PS I should explain further why I think your blog is getting sillier with each posting -- It is nothing to do with 'being offended' by your posts. I was never an 'anarcho punk' -- I'd pretty much left punk behind by the early 80's, and I had no interest whatsoever in the scene, or the personalities or the music. But -- you just look silly trying to falsely re invent that anarcho punk world to meet your increasingly absurd 'anti fascist' agenda.

Secondly, your misrepresentation of 'classical' and contemporary Anarchism is a total mangling of history.

You show almost zero knowledge of Anarchism -- and the Ukrainian and Spanish peasant and serf toilers who represented early Anarchism surely deserve a little more respect than you are according them.

"I once recorded a punk song about 'oppression' and did my own stencilled art work for the cover - very much in the style of Crass, as it happens. Later on I got interviewed by the NME about the need to 'totally smash all power and be yourself'. Does that count?"

Shame you didn't keep it up. It might have afforded you a more respectable position than your current armchair warrior status.

Anon: not to make too fine a point of it, you are an fucking idiot. Of course I've read On The Jewish Question; I simply deny that Marx was anti-Semitic in any meaningful sense. In fact, I think people who repeat lies like that without looking seriously at the issue are not much better than scabs.

If you want to read real, full-blooded and unashamed anti-Semitic trash, why don't you try Proudhon or Bakunin? If you were really interested in fighting racism you would be addressing issues like that and not repeating the sort of ignorant smears about Marx that come clearly and overwhelmingly from the hard right. You should be ashamed of yourself - but you won't be, because you are a poseur and not a serious anti-racist or anti-fascist. You are certainly not worth taking seriously.

I have made it clear that I do not consider anarchism as such to be a coherent ideology (not a particularly controversial position, I would have thought, given the huge divergences within the anarchist movement), which means that there are anarchists I admire, even if I disagree with them, and many who I've been happy to work with and consider friends and co-workers. Just as clearly there have been many, many anarchists who have played a leading role in fighting racism and fascism here and around the world. Clearly I consider those people potential friends and allies.

The problem is that there are also anarchists whose ideas are reactionary shite. It is you who seems to want to defend the integrity of anarchism as a whole, which means that it is you who is lumbered with having to explain away and justify right-wing, reactionary and counter-revolutionary forms of anarchism. Since you cannot do that in a forum such as this you are reduced instead to repeating infantile slurs against Marx.

Since you claim I 'know nothing' about anarchism, I leave it to you to explain away the vile racism of anarchist heroes such as Proudhon and Bakunin - you, clearly, are the expert.

I think the excellent Luther Blisset already pegged people like you in the article on Anarchist Integralism mentioned earlier; "People who have been so de-individuated that they adopt anarchism as a ready-made identity, prefer the stench of the reactionary ideas that fester in their millieu to the pleasures of allowing theory and practice to mediate and cross-fertilise each other. Self-styled anarchists should be encouraged to understand that Bakunin and Proudhon are now historical figures, and that their texts are the refuse of a by-gone age. Both Bakunin's Pan-Slavism and Proudhon's Gallic-Celticism, are merely two illustrations of the rampant nationalism which deformed the historical - and still deforms the contemporary - anarchist 'movement'"

If you read the blog above the comments, it is about a specific individual - Gary Smith - who moved from the anarcho-punk scene to the nazi white power bonehead scene via the neo-folk scene. A lot of the comments go completely off topic.

It doesn't matter if the person who runs this blog is 'whinging' or an 'armchair warrior' (for the record I don't think they are), these insults are a distraction from proper discussion and discredit those who make them. I think this is a case of blaming the messenger and not being prepared to deal with what is being said because those posting these insults are middle-aged misfits who still identify with a long dead youth culture and are not serious about transforming society.

The anarcho-punk trolls on this thread are clearly more invested in defending a subcultural identity they should have left behind as teenagers, than they are in the revolutionary transformation of society. So why don't they go off to a record fair somewhere and pay £50 for a record bearing the slogan 'pay no more than £2.99"?

From a different tradition entirely - but to the point here: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." Corinthians 13.11

I'd like to chip in and agree with the comments above regarding trolling and creating a smoke screen.

Crass were an influence on me as a teenager and I've happily worked alongside anarchists in the past and continue to do so (as long as they are broadly of the class struggle variety rather than any of the currents I have little time for).

I wouldn't call myself an anarchist these days for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that it simply isn't a useful term, being so diverse (putting it politely) or incoherent (putting it less politely, but entirely accurately).

I also think this blog is important in raising issues around subcultural activity. It's weird that fans of Crass are happy for their idols to criticize everything but don't like it when people raise issues around their favorite band. It was always thus, I guess. Question everything, but not Crass... ;-)

That said, I think there have been some excellent and honest contributions above by Alistair, Kaya Decadent and Ruth Hagar.

I can't seem to find the 'Mojo' interview w Penny Rimbaud referred to above. Is it avail online? Otherwise...

The Conway Hall gig and attendant issues are also discussed in 'The Story of Crass' (George Berger, Omnibus, 2008, pp.145--151). Mister Livingston(e), I presume, is quoted, as are Penny, other members of the band, Martin Lux, and moar.

Of particular interest, in this context, Berger also quotes from Rimbaud's essay 'The Last of the Hippies': the 'extreme left' is a plot by privileged persons to gain (state) power; 'right-wing violence' is "generally not politically motivated" but a desperate form of resistance to the ennui generated by wage slavery. Interesting stuff, but on the subject of 'From Anarcho-Punk to Fascism'...

I think the link, insofar as it revolves around Gary Smith/Decadent Few and Rimbaud's political naivete, is pretty tenuous. I mean, a stronger argument would need to look at the r/ship b/w 'anarcho-punk' and 'fascism' as a whole, surely? In which case, it seems to me that there's an abundance of (other) anarchist punk bands and projects that are very much committed to fighting fascism. Finally, I think Crass' commitment to pacifism is key to understanding the band's reaction to 'skinheads', the BM, and so on, rather than their 'anarchism'. Oh, and regarding the whole 'anarchist' thing:

I went out and bought the issue of Mojo (it has Queen on the front cover). I will see if can scan the pages and post them on my blog http://greengalloway.blogspot.com/

Googling on Crass Conway Hall I see that @ndy [see his post above] has covered some of the ground on his blog 4 July 2008. On the broader problem of the relationship between anarcho-punk and fascism - for me anarcho-punk was a pretty narrow and short lived moment - from the Wapping Autonomy Centre in late 1981 to the third and last Stop the City in 1984.

From memory, Ian Bone was the first to use ‘anarcho-punks’ - as a dismissive phrase for the less committed anarchist punks - in a letter to Sounds in 1982. In 1983 Tony D. of Kill Your Pet Puppy used ‘anarcho-punk’ to describe the music of The Mob in a review of their album ‘Let the Tribe Increase’.

Anarcho-punk as a subset of punk emerged from the short lived Wapping Autonomy Centre in east London in late 1981. The Autonomy Centre was Ronan Bennett’s idea at the time (1979) of the Persons Unknown conspiracy trial. It was set up with money from UB40 benefit gigs and a Crass/ Poison Girls single. It opened in a warehouse (Metropolitan Warf) in 1981 but did not attract enough proper anarchists to pay the rent. Andy Martin of the Apostles then set up some Sunday afternoon punk gigs there. This did raise money but broke the lese agreement. The punks - as Albert Meltzer put it -’trashed the place’ and so in early 1982 the Autonomy Centre closed.

This meant a loss of venue for the bands who had played and loss of a social space so there was a relocation of the Autonomy Centre punks to the Centro Iberico in west London during the spring/ summer of 1982 and after that a series of locations in north London were squatted over the next few years as ’Anarchy Centres’.

Since the mid-eighties, anarcho-punk has become a more generalised and vaguer term, but its point of origin was the Wapping Autonomy Centre and Centro Iberico gigs and the few hundred punks who were involved. The ’anarcho’ label was applied to distinguish that set of punks from the contemporary ’oi’ punks or fans of the Exploited. The alternative label was ‘hippy- punks’ - punks who went to free festivals like Stonehenge and later became travellers.

Very few anarcho-punks had any more than the vaguest ideas about anarchism at the time, although some did become anarchists later. With the benefit of hindsight, ‘hippy-punk’ was the more accurate label.

It is too late now to do much about it, but it may be less confusing to understand anarcho-punk as part of the alternative / counter culture rather than as part of anarchism as a political / historical movement.

Alaisdair: There is some truth in that, but still I see it (whatever you call it) as a manifestation of anarchism: maybe not doctrinally pure or thought through, but a significant movement / culture which succeeded in part precisely because it was so amorphous and wooly.

As it happens, I followed the Mob around on tour for a short time. I still think they were the best band of that lot.

Perhaps it is a then and now problem for me. Back then (1976 to be precise) I read The Floodgates of Anarchy and took my political views from that. Now, I have Hegel's Philosophy of Right and then reading Marx's Critique of Hegel's Doctrine of the State - after getting fascinated by Stathis Kouvelakis'Philosophy and Revolution -from Kant to Marx - a process which began when (3 or 4 years ago)I discovered that Debord had recycled lots of Marx in The Society of the Spectacle. The Kouvelakis book really is fascinating in the way it shows how the French Revolution affected German philosophy - and by following the shock waves through - how Marx's political theories emerged from his very intense and close analysis of Hegel's work (which is beyond difficult!).

I knew The Mob very well - shared a house with Mark and Joseph in 83/4, but we never sat around arguing about politics [from what Joseph used to say, I think Zounds did though. One of the reasons The Mob called it a day was that Mark found it difficult to write new 'political' songs. So he bought himself a truck and made a tipi and went off to be a traveller.

Looking back, I am really not sure how anarchist ideas/ theories were absorbed/ communicated - through fiction more than books on theory I guess. I remember Mark loaning me his copy of 'Johnny got his gun'by Dalton Trumbo which is an anti-war book from 1938. Marge Peircy's 'Woman on the Edge of Time' and Ursula le Guinn's 'The Dispossessed' were KYPP's recommended reads and circulated... there were lots of fanzines of course, but I don't recall much political content, mostly interviews.

I certainly don't remember anyone reading Bakunin (I still haven't read him!) but I had a copy of Mutual Aid which got borrowed a few times.

Strelnikov, I don't mean to spoil the party but I just read Anon's post with the link from Marx on "The Jewish Question" -- I have to say, if Marx's thesis doesn't qualify as anti Semitism -- what does? It looks like it came out of the pages of David Duke or Weinenger.Marx is basically calling Jews hucksters who worship money, and saying society needs to be emanicpoated from them.

Jake: on second thoughts, I think I'll just link to this article on Karl Marx, Abraham Leon and the Jewish Question, by John Rose, which provides a summary - and defence - of Marx's text in the context of a wider discussion of Marxist attitudes to 'the Jewish Question'. hth.

As an occasional poster at Who Makes the Nazis, my understanding is that it is not a fingerpointing exercise of saying from outside that industrial music, neo-folk or even parts of anarcho-punk were/are intrinsically fascist. In fact what gives this site its strength is its insider perspectives. Looking over some of the guest posters, as well as Strelnikov, there is a broad range of experience of involvment in industrial, punk and other music scenes at all levels (being in bands, writing zines, putting on clubs, DJing), as well as various kinds of anarchist and communist milieus not to mention occult and other weirdness...

If you have been involved in any of these scenes you will know that you can't label a whole 'sub-culture' as fascist because there's some dodgy people linked to it, but equally you will know that there are some very dodgy people around and if you are serious about confronting racism and fascism you have a duty to draw a line between them and you and to stop them using something you value as a platform to spout their hateful ideas.

This site isn't anti-anarchist. Everyone knows that from Spain to Anti-Fascist Action anarchists have often been in the front line of confronting fascists. Equally it is undeniable that some anarchists have crossed over to the dark side and some historical anarchist figures spouted anti-semitism. If you are an anarchist you need to clearly disavow these elements not get defensive about it.

Of course there are examples too of marxists crossing to the far right, and this also needs to be denounced, e.g. the national bolsheviks and parts of the 1970s French ultra-left.

Partly this is just about individual pathology/psyhology - there are some people who just drift from one small marginal political or cultural scene to another. But we also all need to be self-critical and explore whether there are ideas in our 'scenes' that provide some kind of bridge to the far right.

In the case of anarcho-punk, which I was intensely involved in for a while, I don't think there was any kind of fascist current. Clearly however there were individuals involved in it like John Cato (AYS) and Gary Smith who went on to be quite significant players at the violent end of the racist right so it is legitimate to explore at this site what was going on with them. Good to hear from Ruth and Alistair and especially Kaya in terms of setting the record straight on Gary Smith. Would also be interesting to hear more about Dev, who seems to have had a similar trajectory.

There is a separate debate about how best to deal with fascists, including the balance between physical confrontation and trying to win people over. This debate is at the heart of the Crass/Conway Hall argument which has now been going on for 30 years. I think Crass were wrong then, and many anarchist punks thought so at the time.

I tend to be suspicious about anarchists who claim that they are equally anti-fascist and anti-communist. Of course anarchists opposed what passed for communism in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, but people like Kropotkin had no qualms about calling themselves communists.

In the context of the 70s/80s the issue on the ground was not the abstract symmetry of authoritian left wing/right wing ideas, but the actual danger of racist/nazi thugs terrorising people at gigs and on the streets. What did it mean for any non-white person going to a Crass gig that some of the band were turning a blind eye to the presence of people who wanted them dead? (this is not a hypothetical question, see what happened at the Zig Zag squat, where Colin from Conflict physically defended an asian kid getting beaten up by racist bonenheads).

One more historical detail - Crass denounced the SWP for attacking the Conway Hall gig and it is true that SWP members were involved along with some other socialists, anarchists and militants from Jewish groups (see Martin Lux's participant account). But the SWP expelled some of these people as 'squaddists' shortly afterwards - arguably because like Crass the SWP leadership underestimated the need for anti-fascist vigilance in the 1980s.

To be fair to the SWP, that was a different sort of decision. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that anti-fascist work needed to be de-prioritised at that particular time for strategic reasons, but they didn't change position on the nature of fascism or how it should be fought generally. The squads that became AFA were originally set up by the SWP's leadership and were originally mostly SWP members. As the SWP had set up the ANL precisely in order to directly confront the fascists I think it's unfair to compare their position to Rimbaud's, as he clearly didn't think that the fascists should be confronted. In other words, the SWP pulled back from anti-fascist work for strategic reasons, while Rimbaud did so for political, philosophical reasons.

I'm not defending the SWP's position on this (although I think the issue is complicated and there is some merit in their position), just saying that, if it was a mistake, it was a different sort of mistake to Rimaud's.

Of course, once the SWP had backed away, it was often anarchists (DAM in particular) who stepped into the breech alongside Red Action.

I think that there are a few assumptions being made here from a number of different sources over the years, but I think to call Penny Rimbaud an `apologist for fascism' or the BM is a bit wide of the mark. I did a number of interviews with Rimbaud and there is some discussion of him and Crass in my book and he was fairly clear that his attitude to individual members of the BM was to try and have a conversation with them to see where there was any point of connection to build a dialogue that may break them from their affiliation with the BM. He didn't feel that engaging with the organisation was an appropriate tactic as this would mean providing a direct, and therefore seemingly sympathetic link to them. This kind of tactic should be seen as one part of an armoury against fascism, of course confrontation, organised disruption of events, protest and demonstration are a set of tactics that are usefully employed. But this debate highlights the fact that people often grew up within a community of mates and acquaintances who had a variety of different ideas in their heads. Those ideas could be broken by involving them in a different milieu or scene. In many far right organisations there are often foot soldiers who are often confused and easily led by the hardcore ideological leaderships. If you, alternatively, look at the SWP; how many people have been through that organisation and have been `won' to a different set of ideas - literally tens of thousands - the leadership remains the same (until recently of course - more coups!!) but the troops change and can reject their organisationally led ideas. I see Rimbauds approach as fairly idealist, and therefore not unproblematic, but not as an apologist for fascism.

Just had a quick look through this thread. It ain't always easy to know who you're dealing with. When I was in the Disrupters first time round back in the 80s I helped a band get a couple of gigs round these parts. They seemed nice enough blokes. Turned out later they were a crappy little NF band, although they were very tight lipped about that at the time.They were called ABH, you might have heard of them.We live and learn....

The author admitted to me that he was too old for the anarcho punk scene.

While I like a laugh at idol gossip the reality of politics in the late 70's / early 80's was a tad confusing for anyone there.

Firstly back then most presume were like me a young teen so were a tad naive. Let's face it the vast majority of punk gigs were frequented by alsorts including anarchist and nazis. That's not to say that it was an exclusive arrangement at punk gigs. The Specials, The Clash snd loads of others used to have mixed crowds.

Anyone who went to a working class school would see punks, mods, skinheads, nazi skinheads, rockers etc in the classrooms.

Nothing sinister there - It was those times and in many cases good times were had by many.

As for Dev and the latter bands he played with. I'm not too sure if they were out and out fash or not or just. I know the bands like Death In June who attracted a weird bunch who I had nothing in comon with. Yes theyflirted with fascist imagery and all that but hey so did Joy Division and the early punks.

I know people who know Dev and say he's an ok bloke and those people are not the kind of people who advocate fascism at all.

The guy isn't too hard to track down on the net so why not ask him direct instead of repeating tittle tattle?

As for Crass and this link woth the BM - I laughed my bollocks off there. I hate Crass with a passion but c'mon!

As for anarchism and fascism well both are extreme and have many similar ideas but what divides them is the end results. While anarchists blame capitalism asd a whole the nazis have the Jews down as the conspirators.

I find is rather amusing that Anarchists on one hand tell the masses that believe in free speech and free thinking then on the other hand tell people they can't believe in fascism. Is this not wanting to impose your own thoughts on to others. Anarchism / Fascism are similar in that sense as neither believe in free speech.

As for the John Cato / Colin Jerwood thing. I put it down to John telling porkies as he was certainly not preaching BM stuff to me when I met him. On one occassion I was wearing an anti-fascist t shirt.

As for Colin himself? A decent bloke. Wouldn't call him an anarchist and I'd love to know what he sells in his cafe but thats all silly shit anyway. The guy is a South London wide boy - Nice fella. Good for a laugh with. Very intelligent too. I did laugh at the 'Two Word Wars' thing though! More rumours eh?

As for Steve's comment about ABH I know what you mean. However they later denounced their involvement with Blood + Honour and all that. Just a skinhead band picking the wrong side!

Rather than whine on about the 80's there's plenty of stuff to be done in 2011. Forget the past - Nothing can be done to change it anyway. Think to the future!

Steve DIY wrote: "anarchists blame capitalism" - this is silly, anarchism covers the entire political spectrum from left to right. Anarcho-capitalists AKA libertarians defend capitalism. National Anarchists attack it rhetorically but because they are fascists in practice defend it. Some of the better anarchists groups such as Anarchist Communist Federation did actually oppose capitalism - but most anarchists do not.

This is just one aspect of things, but I think it illustrates why Steve DIY can't be taken seriously on most things. Despite this I agree with him about Colin Conflict.

Stamford Hillbilly; There was a few Nazis on the squatter scene in Hackney ( and ime Stamford Hill) in the late 8ts. ( Tbh that Gary looks like a Nazi who was called Gary who was in the area). There was definately ambivalence by quite a few squatters and a definate cross over. It was obvious to the political squatters these people were dodgy/fasc but lots of otheres defended them. The issue of Runes and Celtic crosses always caused confusion! We knew when the Crosses and Runes were Nazi but lots of Hippies would argue they were not. ( Remember a big argument about this at a big squat centre meeting by the Cricketeers on Northwold Rd n16.) I do remember at one point there was a big face off and this Gary character and his blonde skinhead g/f moved ( i think)

@Avi, after years in the anarcho punk scene and in anti fascist circles I have to say it is you are decietful to link anti zionist reasoning to anti semitism. This is frankly bollocks! You know it is. The reasons for people like myself being anti Israel is for the harshness with which they have treated the Palestinains. A thing may Israelis feel themselves!

Waste of time addressing comments to Avi, whoever he is. He hates you. It's a racial hatred — any non-Jew who criticises Israel is, as far as bigots like Avi are concerned, abusing his position. "Gentiles" are to bow and knock their heads on the ground three times in deference to their living gods. So, don't waste your time debating with race-haters like him. Strelnikov, unfortunately, is all too likely to tolerate cretins like "Avi". Hopefully he will eventually prove himself actually against racism, and not just against white gentiles expressing the kinds of opinions everyone else in the world expresses (against whites and everyone else). If Strelnikov doesn't come through with the real deal, this website should be viewed as a hate site and should be reported to the proper authorities.

Avi wants to make out that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. It is no such thing, though obviously anti-Semites are usually (though not always) anti-Zionist. I'm happy to cull any genuine anti-Semitic comments - which, in fact, I do all the time. On the other hand, there are plenty of people other than Avi who also equate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, so I think it's worth taking up Avi's arguments (within reason - this is a site about fascist interventions in culture, not a forum for general anti-racist discussion).

On the other hand, your own claim that Avi is motivated by 'racial hatred' is BS that makes the situation worse. And the idea that this site should be viewed as a hate site is clearly trolling.

Earlier in the thread, the subjects of Marx and anti Semitism were mentioned -- ok, let's look at the following sentences, and do a quick quiz :

Who said the following words? Was it :

( A ) David Duke.

( B ) Nick Griffin.

( C ) John Tyndall.

( D ) David Irving.

( E ) Errr.....Karl Marx?

Read, and decide --

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew... the everyday Jew...What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money...Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism...

This is no isolated fact. The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.

The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.

What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism...Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist...The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange...

Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.

The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

The groundless law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself.

Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.

Strelnikov, I find your censorship and selection very troubling -- how can one get real debate going, when you censor perfectly reasonable posts? I posted a number of quotes from Marx that I personally consider to be anti Semitic -- they were relvant in that those aspects of Marx's writing are part of the 'coherence' , topic, subject and continuity of the thread.

Why did you not let them go online? They were not trolling, and if they were examples of 'hate speech', then that can only tell us something about Marx's views becuase he wrote the words.

@Anon: No offence, but I just find it a very boring argument (Marx and the Jewish Question), that has been had exhaustively a thousand times elsewhere, and at least once on this blog (earlier in the comments above). There was nothing remotely anti-Semitic in the sections you quoted. If you want to read a serious treatment of the question, try this excellent article by John Rose.

But since you've piped up, I shall publish your comments (they will appear inline above). I shall also try to contact John Rose to see if he will let me republish his article here, so that those who care can discuss the matter in the right place.

6Comm is tribal world music, so shut your mewling trap — nobody who posts on Stormfront is going to this gig for any reason, unless they like hippy music.And no, British Movement doesn't exist anymore. But you know that, don't you, fake boy?

If anybody took the time to look at the two clowns who posted the stuff on Stormfront, they would find that they had been members there for a long time - and were both quite obviously REAL nazis, but then the people who thought it was antifascists trolling are too unaware of how to - or more likely, unwilling, to seek out the truth of the matter. Jon - if you were to go to google and type in "British Movement' - you would find both the wiki entry - that states that the British Movement DO still exist - albeit in a very small form - and also the Blood and Honour website- Which seems to suggest that BM and BNSM is the same thing - certainly there is a current British Movement magazine - the Broadsword, advertised. That said, I don't know how the poster above knows that the guy who runs it had said he was going to the gig; but then again, maybe it was because I didn't read that far into the stormfront contributions of the two who started that thread. Seems they don't just like Oi! then.

This Mike from Decadent Few. Thanks for the mention on the site, but I have to clear up the matter of Gary Smith once and for all. Gary was with us for 9 months in 1984 and a dozen gigs. His fascist sympathies appeared LONG after he left D.Few, many years after in fact, and obviously we had no control over what he went on to do/think. Whilst with us Gary was a Crass fan and squatted with Flowers In The Dustbin. AFTER leaving D.Few he got into Death In June and Psychic TV, later still came the Nazi bullshit. His perogative, whether we like it or not (and we certainly didn't!)